Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category

Just 2 months ago, I didn’t know who Bill Taylor was. Now I know that he’s another career diplomat who doesn’t like it that President Trump is implementing the foreign policy that the American people elected him to implement. Tuesday, Taylor testified that “President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate both election interference and a company linked to former Vice President Joe Biden’s son — and was willing to hold up military aid and a White House meeting to get a public announcement from the country that the probes were underway.”

Even if that’s true, that’s still a nothingburger. Unfortunately for Taylor, there was a man of integrity in the room during Taylor’s testimony. That man’s name is John Ratcliffe. Ratcliffe is a former US attorney who now represents TX-04. Tonight, Ratcliffe appeared on The Story to be interviewed by Martha McCallum. After Ratcliffe said that he couldn’t repeat what he said in the secret room, Ratcliffe figured out a legal way to say what happened during his cross-examination of Taylor. Here’s the video of that interview:

Predictably, Democrats described today’s testimony as “the most damning they’ve heard.” Ratcliffe had a different perspective. First, though, is part of what Taylor testified to:

“I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance, not just the White House meeting, was conditioned on the investigations.”

In this instance, Taylor’s testimony was third-hand information at best. Third-hand testimony heard behind closed doors and which doesn’t come with a transcript of Congressman Ratcliffe’s cross-examination is virtually worthless.

Congressman Ratcliffe noted that “At the end of the day, this was about quid pro quo and whether the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that any military aid was being withheld on July 25th. Unless and until they can bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone who speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a legal quid pro quo is impossible.”

Ratcliffe also noted that “[Schiff] keeps trotting in career ambassadors who are alarmed at Donald Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign policy. Who’s surprised at that? And again, today, I found Ambassador Taylor to be very forthright. He had very strong opinions about Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, but again, the MSM keeps reporting that he provided evidence of a quid pro quo involving military aid is false. I questioned him on that and, under Adam Schiff’s rules, I can’t tell you what he said but I can tell you what he didn’t say. And he nor any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You have a quid pro quo without the quo.”

Ratcliffe’s final major contribution of the interview came when he said this:

Martha, if this was a court case, the lawyers for the defense would be moving for a directed verdict. They’d be saying ‘this case isn’t allowed to go to a jury because the prosecution is missing an essential element of their case.’ There is no quid pro quo until someone from the Ukraine says ‘We knew that military aid was being withheld during that July 25th call and that testimony hasn’t come and it isn’t going to come.”

This impeachment case is collapsing, albeit behind closed doors. It isn’t just that the case is weak. It’s that the Senate is about to vote on Lindsey Graham’s resolution that essentially says that the House process has been a travesty:

Sen. Graham is right in pushing that the impeachment trial be dismissed without a trial if the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, aka Adam Schiff, isn’t willing to afford to President Trump the same rights that were granted to President Nixon and President Clinton. The House Democrats’ impeachment process is a travesty. It shouldn’t be treated like it was an honest investigation based on constitutional rights.

Earlier tonight, Democrat ‘moderates’ Angie Craig, Collin Peterson and Dean Phillips voted against censuring Democrat Impeachment Chairman Adam Schiff for lying to the American people while delivering his opening statement in the Maguire hearing. For those who don’t remember that hearing by that name, it’s the one where Democrat Impeachment Chairman opened with this speech:

Here’s the heart of Schiff’s speech:

horn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.

In Schiff’s speech, it’s clear that he’s signaling that President Trump threatened Ukrainian President Zelensky with the withholding of military aid. According to Schiff’s fake phone call transcript, that military aid would be withheld from Ukraine if President Zelensky didn’t “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it.”

The bottom line is this — Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, lied to Congress and the American people. This isn’t just a silly prank. Schiff’s speech is permanently part of the Congressional Record. Minnesota’s ‘moderate Democrats’ didn’t think Schiff’s dishonest speech was worthy of official criticism. These ‘moderate Democrats’ thought that the man leading an investigation to remove the president of the United States shouldn’t be officially criticized. Perhaps, it’s because they bought Schiff’s BS that this was a parody. If that’s a parody, how do Phillips, Peterson and Craig explain this paragraph from Schiff’s speech?

This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

Schiff said it with his own words that “this is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.” That’s a pretty fanciful interpretation of the transcript. Here’s what President Trump actually told President Zelensky:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation … I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you said yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

Nothing in Schiff’s speech sounds like anything from Trump’s phone call. It’s appalling that Minnesota’s supposedly moderate Democrats bought Schiff’s BS and voted the way that Pelosi wanted them to vote. They aren’t moderates. They’re just gullible Democrats.

Democrats can’t pretend that they’re moderates because they’re doing things that are historically unprecedented. Recently, Schiff said that he’s essentially doing the work of a special counsel. I don’t disagree with that. The problem is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was officially employed by the DOJ. Schiff’s biggest problem is that the DOJ is part of the executive branch. Impeachment chairs are fixtures of the legislative branch.

The Constitution matters

This says everything:

Former special counsel Robert Mueller led the Russia probe, but no new prosecutor has been tapped by Attorney General William Barr for the Ukraine matter. That leaves House Democrats with only a whistleblower’s complaint rather than boxes of investigators’ evidence to guide them. “Congress has to do that,” Schiff said, because the Justice Department believes “there’s nothing to see here.”

Schiff, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, is leading the probe at the direction of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and proceeding like the prosecutor he once was, staging a grand jury-like process that has been pilloried by Republicans. As Schiff works behind closed doors to build the case, Republicans accuse Democrats of waging an unfair, and according to the White House, illegitimate, investigation. But Schiff says the House has few other choices than to build the case on its own.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that members of the legislative branch have the authority to impanel investigative grand juries. If the DOJ tells the legislative branch to pound sand if the House refers cases to the DOJ, that’s what happens when you lose elections. When Republicans made criminal referrals to Eric Holder’s DOJ about the IRS scandal and Holder rejected those referrals, Trey Gowdy couldn’t impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder. That was it. If the DOJ says no, then the answer is no. Period.

The thing is that Schiff didn’t bother trying to hide his attempt to be an investigator/prosecutor. He said this right out in the open.

Democrats have a messaging problem with Joe Biden. The Democrats’ biggest problem is that they’ve stuck with the ‘Trump is going after his political enemy’ storyline. Up until now, that’s been effective. Bit-by-bit, though, it’s hitting the point-of-diminishing-returns wall.

It’s indisputable that candidates can’t take campaign contributions from foreigners or foreign companies. That’s been on the books for decades. That’s getting murkier by the day. Presidents have the obligation to fight crime, too. As long as those 2 obligations tug at each other, this isn’t a simple thing to sort through.

The minute you say President Trump can’t ask for China’s help in investigating Hunter Biden’s activities, 2 bad things happen. First, you tie the president’s hands in conducting foreign policy. That’s never a positive. I also don’t think it’s constitutional because the Constitution gives the president sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Also, does anyone seriously think that the Supreme Court would capriciously limit a president’s ability to conduct foreign policy? I can’t imagine it.

Next, does anyone think it’s wise to tell the executive branch that they shouldn’t investigate corruption hidden within the US executive branch? I don’t. If the man who’s getting investigated is the former VP and he’s also running for President, I’d suggest that that political party should find someone with more integrity to be their nominee.

In 2016, Hillary complained that Jim Comey demolished her presidential campaign. At the time, I wrote that if she didn’t want the FBI investigating her, she shouldn’t have been that corrupt. I’d tell Joe and Hunter Biden that they shouldn’t have trafficked in influence peddling while Crazy Joe was Vice President. It isn’t that complicated, though I’ll immediately admit that it’d be mighty tempting to take the millions and run.

This isn’t just a campaign finance issue. It’s a governing/law enforcement issue, too. It can’t be one or the other. It’s gotta be both. As is often the case with the law, there’s a judicial ‘tug-of-war’, for lack of a better term, between competing principles that aren’t settled with oversimplified communications. It’s best admitting right at the start that there’s a conflict that must be resolved.

To me, it isn’t that big of a deal for President Trump to tell China or Ukraine he’d appreciate their help in investigating high-level corruption. If that corruption potentially involves a presidential candidate’s offspring, should the offspring get a free pass? Or should that son or daughter get investigated? To me, that’s a no-brainer — investigate.

If a presidential candidate’s son or daughter wants to stay out of the news, behave yourself. If you continue misbehaving, expect the investigation. This isn’t that tough to figure out.

It’s time for these reporters to start putting 2 and 2 together. It’s time that they figure out what the people that they’re covering are busy with. It’s time they start putting the puzzle together.

Things are definitely heating up in the presidential race, with President Trump and Vice President Pence on one side and former Vice President Joe Biden on the other side. Right now, Vice President Biden is outmatched. Today, Vice President Pence was asked if it was ok for President Trump to tell China and other nations to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Vice President Pence “gave a full-throated defense of President Trump’s call for an investigation into” Biden and his son, saying “The American people have the right to know whether or not the vice president of the United States or his family profited from his position. My predecessor had a son who was paid $50,000 a month to be on a Ukrainian board at the time that Vice President Biden was leading the Obama administration’s efforts in Ukraine, I think (that) is worth looking into. And the president has made it very clear that he believes … other nations around the world should look into it as well. When you hold the second highest office in the land it comes with unique responsibilities – not just to be above impropriety, but to be above the appearance of impropriety, and clearly in this case there are legitimate questions that ought to be asked.”

Pence also said that he and President Trump were elected, at least in part, on draining the swamp. Voters didn’t say ‘drain the swamp except if it’s happening in another country.’ People want the swamp drained. Period. This video is a precise, intelligent explanation for why Vice President Biden should be investigated:

Here is President Trump calling on China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens:

Meanwhile, Joe Biden attempted to defend his family with limited success:

Let me make something clear to Trump and his hatchet men and the special interests funding his attacks against me: I’m not going anywhere. You’re not going to destroy me. And you’re not going to destroy my family. I don’t care how much money you spend or how dirty the attacks get.

Biden sounds defensive. It might be the best he can do but it isn’t enough to win the gold medal.

As I wrote earlier, President Trump is getting good news from lots of different locations. His job approval is definitely improving. His fundraising is shooting through the roof. These aren’t the characteristics of a candidate on the defensive. They’re the characteristics of a man campaigning with confidence.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, it is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate. Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.

Roger L. Simon’s latest article isn’t likely to help Democrats sleep well at night. Simon’s article quotes extensively from Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s WSJ op-ed, which is behind a paywall. The biggest story lately has been impeachment. That won’t stay the biggest story forever. If Attorney General Mukasey is right, I’d hate to have a last name spelled B-i-d-e-n. Here’s Mukasey’s explanation:

That Justice Department statement makes explicit that the president never spoke with Attorney General William Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son” or asked him to contact Ukraine “on this or any other matter,” and that the attorney general has not communicated at all with Ukraine. It also contains the following morsel: “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.” [Bold mine]

I doubt that Moeller’s investigation into Ukraine was that vigorous. Nobody will doubt that Durham’s investigation is thorough enough. This is why this digging is utterly worthwhile:

The definitive answer to the obvious question—what’s that about?—is known only to Mr. Durham and his colleagues. But publicly available reports, including by Andrew McCarthy in his new book, “Ball of Collusion,” suggest that during the 2016 campaign the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get evidence from Ukrainian government officials against Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to pressure him into cooperating against Mr. Trump. When you grope through the miasma of Slavic names and follow the daisy chain of related people and entities, it appears that Ukrainian officials who backed the Clinton campaign provided information that generated the investigation of Mr. Manafort—acts that one Ukrainian court has said violated Ukrainian law and “led to interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

I don’t know what Durham will find but I’m confident he’ll find lots of stuff. After all, he’s the guy who took over a cold case after 30 years, then found the evidence and witnesses and won a conviction. If I’m a Biden or associated with the Clinton campaign, I’d start worrying. It’s warranted.

John Ratcliffe is quickly becoming one of my favorite Republicans because he’s skilled at cutting through the Democrats’ subterfuge. I just watched Rep. Ratcliffe demolish the Democrats’ impeachment charade. While questioning Acting Secretary McGuire, Rep. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the so-called whistleblower didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelenskiy of Ukraine. Further, Ratcliffe pointed out that the whistleblower got his/her information from media articles. That caused Ratcliffe to say that this was “Russia 2.0”.

The transcript was made public yesterday. The whistleblower’s complaint was made public (with redactions) this morning. Ratcliffe highlighted the fact that the Democrats preferred the information from a document whose information was, at best, secondhand and perhaps thirdhand over the transcription of the actual phone call.

It’s worth noting that this tells me that the whistleblower will get crucified if that person testifies to Congress. If the whistleblower doesn’t have firsthand knowledge of President Trump’s phone call, why should that be considered credible? Ratcliffe highlighted that the whistleblower’s worries came from articles in Politico, NYTimes, Washington Post and other media outlets.

As bad as some of those articles might’ve been in terms of accuracy, they pale in comparison with Chairman Schiff’s opening statement:

Chairman Schiff rearranged some paragraphs from the transcript to make it sound nefarious. Apparently, it didn’t dawn on Chairman Schiff that reading things in the order they were written is required to understand what the people intended to convey. Shortly thereafter, Ranking Member Nunes delivered his opening statement. Notice how he mocks Chairman Schiff:

The whistleblower’s complaint contains some things that destroy the Democrats’ credibility. For instance, it says “In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple Government officials that President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. election.” In other words, it’s entirely possible that this whistleblower might’ve gotten their information from deep state operatives who hate President Trump. That isn’t a verified statement but it’s entirely possible.

Earlier, I mentioned John Ratcliffe’s questioning of Secretary McGuire. Now, I have the videotape of his questioning. Right at the opening of Rep. Ratcliffe’s questioning, Rep. Ratcliffe starts with something very disturbing:

That’s pretty stunning. The whistleblower first accuses Rudy Giuliani of conspiring with Bill Barr to rig the 2020 election. Later, in a footnote, the whistleblower admits that they aren’t certain to what extent either Giuliani or Barr was ever involved. That’s kind of a big point to be uncertain about if you’re interested in journalistic integrity. If you’re just worried about impeaching President Trump regardless of whether the evidence supports it, which appears to be the Democrats’ goal, then it isn’t that important.

Final prediction: Apolitical people will side with Republicans on this issue. Hyper-partisans will side with Democrats. Since there are more people whose lives don’t revolve around politics, it’s likely that this issue favors Republicans politically.

Anyone that watched this afternoon’s House Judiciary Committee hearing that featured former Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski as the Committee’s star witness saw Democrats that were frustrated. Those same Democrats were mockingly called “the Party of Impeachment” by Congressman Ratcliffe, (R-TX). By any stretch of the imagination, today’s hearing was a wretched sight.

If I was running the NRCC’s campaign, and I’m not (Tom Emmer is running things), I’d simply have candidates watch Jerry Nadler’s questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. Either that I’d have them watch the 3 Stooges, although the 3 Stooges weren’t as discombobulated as Chairman Nadler. Chairman Nadler wasn’t just bewildered during his questioning of Mr. Lewandowski. He was frustrated, too. Watch this videoclip and ask yourself if Chairman Nadler looks composed or agitated:

To me, Chairman Nadler looked extremely frustrated. He didn’t look composed whatsoever. Then compare that with how composed Rep. John Ratcliffe looks while questioning Mr. Lewandowski:

Doug Collins’ needling of Chairman Nadler might be my favorite part of the hearing:

The best part came when Collins said “I’ve never seen a majority so interested in packaging in all my life. You know why? Because they can’t sell what’s inside. They can’t sell the product so they just keep packaging it differently. You like having the press here. You like having the cameras because it makes it look like something’s happening but it’s not.”

Collins continued, saying “The American people are starting to get it. They’re starting to get it that if you’re just howling at the wind, you’re not doing anything.”

Later, Lewandowski got under Hakeem Jeffries’ skin:

Lewandowski later declined to play along with certain questions. New York Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries asked Lewandowski if he was Trump’s “hitman, the bag man, the lookout, or all of the above?” “I think I’m the good looking man, actually,” Lewandowski replied.

Honestly, today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing exposed how incompetent Democrats are. If a back-bencher like Jerry Nadler is a committee chairman, that’s proof positive that Democrats aren’t worthy of holding gavels. Democrats were so bad that MSNBC and CNN criticized Committee Democrats:

NBC News correspondent Ken Dilanian suggested to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi that Democratic lawmakers were primarily focused on “getting their moment on television” than getting the facts from their witness.

Then there’s this:

Politico reporter and MSNBC analyst Jake Sherman questioned why Lewandowski’s involvement in the Mueller report “wasn’t the focus” of the hearing. “At the end of the day, Democrats are going to have to leave this hearing and say, ‘What did we accomplish today and did it bring us closer to X?’ They don’t know what ‘X’ is,” Sherman told the panel.

“They don’t know what they’re doing and at the end of this hearing, I suspect… that they feel like Trump has changed the rules so much that he’s impervious to all of this. He’s not afraid of impeachment… so they’re just kind of coasting along and doing their thing.”

Holding a gavel is a prestigious accomplishment. I didn’t see a single Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee that I thought was qualified to chair a committee. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee got trolled. These Democrats sit on one of the most prestigious, historic committees in history. This is the committee that started the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. Rather than looking the part, Corey Lewandowski trolled Eric Swalwell:

Lewandowski appeared to mock California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s unsuccessful bid for the White House earlier this year, calling him “President Swalwell” at one point during questioning.

These Democrats aren’t ready for primetime. I’m not certain that they’re up to a part on Keystone Cops. I am certain that they’re best suited to back-benchers in the minority party in the House.

Isn’t it a coincidence that this article just happened to pop up right after Jerry Nadler’s impeachment inquiry fizzled, again. It seems like the fiftieth time on that. It feels like the fiftieth time that Democrats have brought forth unsubstantiated accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats have put together another ‘scandal’ involving Justice Brett Kavanaugh. This time, a significant portion of the Democrats’ presidential candidates insist that Justice Kavanaugh be impeached. According to this article, “Top 2020 Democratic contenders Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker and Julian Castro announced on Sunday that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh ‘must be impeached,’ after a new, uncorroborated and disputed allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh surfaced in a weekend New York Times piece.”

Apparently, Democrats don’t care if they destroy Justice Kavanaugh’s family, including his beautiful daughters. Remember this moment from Justice Kavanaugh’s hearing?

That’s a moment I’ll never forget. Conversely, I wish I could forget the torture that Democrats inflicted on Justice Kavanaugh’s family. I wish I didn’t have to know this BS:

The Times piece by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, asserted that a Kavanaugh classmate, Clinton-connected nonprofit CEO Max Stier, “saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”

The Times did not mention Stier’s work as a Clinton defense attorney, or Stier’s legal battles with Kavanaugh during the Whitewater investigation, and simply called him a “respected thought leader.”

Then there’s this:

But, the Times’ article also conspicuously did not mention that Pogrebin and Kelly’s book found that the female student in question had denied any knowledge of the alleged episode. “The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event,” observed The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway. “Seems, I don’t know, significant.”

The book reads: “[Tracy] Harmon, whose surname is now Harmon Joyce, has also refused to discuss the incident, though several of her friends said she does not recall it.”

It isn’t a coincidence that Ms. Blasey-Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, just admitted in a speech that Dr. Blasey-Ford had political motivations for testifying:

This is frightening:

The Times went on to note in the article that it had “corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier,” but the article apparently meant only that the Times had corroborated that Stier made his claim to the FBI. No first-hand corroboration of the alleged episode was apparently obtained.

In other words, the NYTimes’ article is just about worthless. This story is just as corroborate as Ms. Blasey-Ford’s initial accusation. This is just as frightening:

Nevertheless, Democrats announced a new effort to topple Kavanaugh. Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, who infamously said last year that Kavanaugh did not deserve a fair hearing because he might be pro-life, said the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin an impeachment inquiry to determine whether Kavanaugh lied to Congress.

Sen. Hirono should take a civics class from Dean Urdahl. Impeachment doesn’t start in the Senate. Impeachment investigations start in the House because the House is the only body authorized by the Constitution to start articles of Impeachment.

These Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t contributed a thing to make the United States better. That’s why Democrats should be run out of Dodge, proverbially speaking.

To say that Michelle Benson is on a mission to fix the graft and corruption within the Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) is understatement. Sen. Benson hasn’t let up in her pursuit of answers into why Democrats ignored the corruption within the Department. According to this official statement, Sen. Benson sent out questions to key figures in the recent crisis.

According to the statement, “During the HHS hearing on August 13, Senator Michelle Benson told DHS officials she would provide written questions for the department to answer. Questions were sent on August 19 to Carolyn Ham, Acting Commissioner Pam Wheelock, and Deputy Commissioners Chuck Johnson and Claire Wilson. Benson did receive acknowledgment the questions were received by Acting Commissioner Wheelock. However, with another hearing scheduled for September 4, Benson has not received substantial responses to the requests, nor has she received responses the data practices requests made in July.”

In other words, political appointees within DHS have refused to cooperate with the legislature’s legitimate oversight responsibilities. I wrote here that Jodi Harpstead, Gov. Walz’s appointee to replace Commissioner Lourey, has a history of specializing in hiding important details from authorities.

Ms. Harpstead hasn’t assumed her position as Commissioner but the Department has already started with hiding things from the legislature. Imagine how tight-lipped they’ll be when Ms. Harpstead, aka the silence-meister, takes over as Commissioner.

Check out these questions to these people:

View the written questions:
Questions to Acting Commissioner Pam Wheelock
Questions to Carolyn Ham
Questions to Chuck Johnson
Questions to Claire Wilson

It’s pretty obvious that these employees specialize in hiding information from taxpayers. It’s equally obvious that these employees think that they don’t answer to anyone.

Sen. Benson realizes that that’s a problem. That’s why she’s on a mission.